Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7739308" data-attributes="member: 32740">I'd blow it up and start over from scratch, with a specific and SELF-CONTAINED setting in mind (unpolluted by crossover with existing game settings of ANY kind - leave that to people that want to house-rule such stuff in at their own risk).&nbsp; Spelljammer had an overwhelming amount of large and small-scale problems with settings, game mechanics, even general concepts.&nbsp; It was fun when I first ran it - and did so VERY fast and loose, glossing over massive chunks of mechanics and the values that were assigned to things.&nbsp; But that's no way to run a railroad, as it were.Spelljammer needs to be approached as if it were a SCI-FI game, not a fantasy game, because that's the basic shape of frame that Spelljammer is hung on.&nbsp; But they peddled it as something you just tacked on to any existing D&amp;D setting (indeed mixing any and ALL settings for maximum kitchen sink dishwater) and weirdly expected that to really work long-term.&nbsp; For me it was just a cognitive dissonance atomic bomb and despite various attempts to go back and patch it up to where I'd feel able to use it again, it just wouldn't gel.&nbsp; Some of its basic concepts just got to be sacrificed to make that happen, IMO.&nbsp; It's doable, and _I_ think would result in a really cool game, but the few existing dedicated fans of the original would HATE it because of what it ISN'T rather than love it because of what it would actually be.But that's just me.&nbsp; Hey, if they actually DO make a Spelljammer game I'm likely to buy it just to see what I might be able to do with it.&nbsp; Spelljammer is the ONE game setting I ran that players specifically have asked me on multiple occasions to run again.&nbsp; I just don't want to do it while freestyling EVERYTHING from the DM's chair.&nbsp; I'm too old for that.&nbsp; Takes too much energy and/or too much time to prep, neither of which I have in abundance any more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 7739308, member: 32740"] I'd blow it up and start over from scratch, with a specific and SELF-CONTAINED setting in mind (unpolluted by crossover with existing game settings of ANY kind - leave that to people that want to house-rule such stuff in at their own risk). Spelljammer had an overwhelming amount of large and small-scale problems with settings, game mechanics, even general concepts. It was fun when I first ran it - and did so VERY fast and loose, glossing over massive chunks of mechanics and the values that were assigned to things. But that's no way to run a railroad, as it were. Spelljammer needs to be approached as if it were a SCI-FI game, not a fantasy game, because that's the basic shape of frame that Spelljammer is hung on. But they peddled it as something you just tacked on to any existing D&D setting (indeed mixing any and ALL settings for maximum kitchen sink dishwater) and weirdly expected that to really work long-term. For me it was just a cognitive dissonance atomic bomb and despite various attempts to go back and patch it up to where I'd feel able to use it again, it just wouldn't gel. Some of its basic concepts just got to be sacrificed to make that happen, IMO. It's doable, and _I_ think would result in a really cool game, but the few existing dedicated fans of the original would HATE it because of what it ISN'T rather than love it because of what it would actually be. But that's just me. Hey, if they actually DO make a Spelljammer game I'm likely to buy it just to see what I might be able to do with it. Spelljammer is the ONE game setting I ran that players specifically have asked me on multiple occasions to run again. I just don't want to do it while freestyling EVERYTHING from the DM's chair. I'm too old for that. Takes too much energy and/or too much time to prep, neither of which I have in abundance any more. [/QUOTE]

Verification